<< Back to Off-topic Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 10 of 10   
1918 - 2018.Romania 100.: 8/24/2018 21:41:46

Level 57
Well, hello again warlighters.
As probably few (and by that I mean noone) of you know, this year happens to be the centenary of not only the end of the Great War, but also to be the centenary of the Romanian Great Union , concluded with the union between Romania and the lands of Transilvania,Banat and Crisana on December 1st 1918.
With this occasion I've decided to come with some history thing about what have lead towards the Great Union,but also some after it.From this moment on (23/24th August) till 1st of December , I will try my best to post every day, 100 days from now,
Hope you will enjoy.

Your mad-thinkin' lad
1918 - 2018.Romania 100.: 8/24/2018 21:47:41

Level 57
I.Opinion trends in politics and society

I.1The International situation

The French and Germans, known for one of the most powerful adversities that have divided and bled Europe, have proved able to write their common history without discriminatory judgments. They treated in a unified vision the First World War, both in the recent French-German history book and in a book devoted to the conflict. The book was written in collaboration by a French and a German historian. They were ready to fight for the ultimate good of their own country.

The evolution of the First World War escaped from control, with the intervention of the pride of the Great European Powers. Austro-Hungary hoped for a limited war with Serbia. Russia jumped in Serbia’s help.This triggered the German attack on France, a country most likely to have entered into conflict with its ally, Russia. This would force Germany to fight on two fronts.

If he did not react, Austro-Hungary would have lost its credibility, both on the European stage and in front of its own peoples. This was not for expansionist purposes, because it would not have served them. On the contrary, territorial expansion brought about the introduction of hundreds of thousands of new borders and thousands of Slavs. Count Tisza, the prime minister of Hungary, initially opposed the war, precisely because he was dealing in Hungary with too many ethnic Slavs.

Serbia is the country that has, along with the other components of Yugoslavia, manifested itself throughout the century with a potential for instability, anarchy and terrorism.Besides the recent Bosnian massacres, the Austro-Hungarian rule of the country appears idyllically. Austro-Hungary took advantage of the assassinate and replicated, blowing Serbia harder and weakening its influence in the region. Serbian nationalist circles have kept the agitation on both sides of the border. This attitude was irritating and even dangerous for the Austro-Hungarian monarchy.

The report of forces and the chances of winning the war raise another issue. It is known that Germany lost it, and hence the temptation to think it was fatal to lose it. However, Germany had its chances, not less than the others.

In the international context, there is the issue of the responsibility of Austria-Hungary. She made the first step, declaring war on Serbia. The Sarajevo Assasinate was set up by Bosnian Serb terrorists with support from Serbia.This was not a simple fact. The murder of the heirloom prince, Franz Ferdinand and his wife, at least symbolically, hit the heart of the empire.The discriminatory treatment applied to the nationalities of the double monarchy, especially on its Hungarian side, was also invoked. This highlights, on a European level, the right of a sovereign state to react, much more when it is perceived as a great power.

It was a war of surprises . It took much longer than any of the participants epected. A short war would have favored Germany, whose striking force was superior. The long war has disadvantaged her. Unforeseen developments have kept in chain, leading to the revolution in Russia, the US entry in the war, the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

The Central Powers were deprived of by the number of opponents, the uncomfortable continental position that forced them to fight on many fronts, and the economic blockade imposed by the United Kingdom.

Germany surpassed everyone else, through its economic and military power, organization and efficiency. The war was relatively balanced, that’s the reason why it lasted so long. But, speaking of a partial advantage, it was almost always in favor of Germany, from the beginning of the war to the last months, before the end.

I.2.The national situation

The country's political society and elite was far from being united during this period. The crisis faced by politicians was quite strong.The population was divided into several currents of opinion about the war.There is a serious difference between the King's opinion and public opinion. The King and a small group of Germanophils wanted to support the Germanophile current in the war. But most of the political class and public opinion strongly advocated the Entente.

With the launch of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum towards Serbia, it became clear that the Romanian government will remain neutral towards the European events. Carol I would have wished to honor the commitments made to the Central Powers on the basis of the treaty.(Romania had a secret treaty with the Central Powers since 1883). But due to the many events that took place in the previous year (Second Balkan War), Romania's position could change at any time. Carol confided to Ottokar Czernin, the foreign minister of Austria-Hungary, that his position was uncertain. There was little chance for Romania to meet its commitments.

Although they had different views and guidelines on the position to be supported during the war, both
sides(Ententephiles and Germanophiles) agreed that Romania was not prepared for such a military impact. Avoiding entering into war was the country’s urgent need. The aggressive behavior of Austria-Hungary towards Serbia and the poor preparation of the Romanian army set the political elite on thoughts.

With the aggravation of the crisis, the political elite became concerned about both Central Europe's position on the war and the position of the Balkans. The rivalry between Romania and Bulgaria was strong. The treaty signed in Bucharest in 1913 failed to put an end to this enmity.Thus, the day before the start of World War I, Czernin met with Bratianu (Romanian prime minister during the war) to receive a clear statement about the intentions of the Romanians.

Prime Minister Bratianu informed Czernin that Romania will now take a standpoint of neutrality. But there is a possibility of change, especially if Bulgaria is involved in the conflict and if there are significant changes in the balance of power of Europe. Romania was now in a critical situation.At the European level, Bratianu does not doubt the defeat of Serbia by Austria-Hungary. But he opposed any changes or modifications to the Serbian borders.

Political elites were convinced of Serbia's desire to resolve the crisis peacefully. But they feared that otherwise it would ask for military aid to Russia, which would offer it. This will give rise to a general war. King Carol I and Prime Minister Bratianu asked both Serbia and Austria-Hungary, to resolve their differences through negotiations.This has not happened, and Austro-Hungary addressed an ultimatum to Serbia. War has thus become inevitable.Serbia was unable to accept all the demands of the ultimatum.

Romania has announced its neutrality position following the Crown Council, chaired by Carol I.This meeting was attended by members of the government, former prime ministers and various members of political parties.This council has balanced the country's immediate entry into the war by the Central Powers, supported by Carol I and Petre Carp. Carol wanted to maintain his commitments to Austro-Hungary and strongly believed in German power.But the others did not join him. This creates the alternative of neutrality, which was eventually chosen.
1918 - 2018.Romania 100.: 8/25/2018 20:44:47

Level 57
I.3 The Germanophil current

The Germanophil current represented one of the two great World War I alliances:Central Powers or the Triple Alliance. Central Powers were formed in the first of the war by Austria-Hungary, Germany and Italy. This military current shared the country's social and political opinion in two, especially in years of neutrality.

The Germanophile pole of the country was represented by King Carol I and Petre P. Carp, one of the most fierce supporters of Germanophile ideals. Adept of Romania's entry into World War I alongside the Central Powers, Petre P. Carp maintains his viewpoint by focusing on the Russian danger. He was of the opinion that Romania must be in the same camp with Germany and its other partner states in order to survive the war. A supporter of Carp's ideas was Basarabian Constantin Stere.

The Germanophile current was divided into several branches, depending on the geopolitical perspective of each political man. Thus, a more moderate version of the current is represented by Alexandru Marghiloman and Titu Maiorescu, representatives of the Conservative Party. The two talked about a favorable neutrality for both Germany and Austria-Hungary, to help Romania both at European and international level as well as at national level.

An analysis similar to that of Petre P. Carp was made by Constantin Stere, who firmly affirmed his position against neutrality.He talked about the consequences of the Romanians' passivity towards European events, arguing that this political passivity will not bring any positive result for the country. He called for renunciation of neutrality.

Petre P. Carp firmly supported Romania's political mistake to enter into neutrality, as long as Germany's military power was incontestable. Thus, the Conservative states that Romania can not stand as a mere spectator in the face of the great European conflict.Taking account of the costs of the neutral current, Carp expressed that this neutrality would lead Romania at a loss, because the victory and power of the Triple Alliance was certain.

A good example of divergences between Germanophiles and Antanophiles is the famous brochure titled “Romania and the European War : Who we should go with ?” This brochure, published by Tiparul publishing house, is probably the best example for understanding the political splitting of Romania's entry into World War I at that time.The brochure represents a collection of articles referring to Romania's most favorable position of entry into war. Strong personalities such as Petre P. Carp, Mihail Sadoveanu, or Radu Rosseti wrote in this brochure.
1918 - 2018.Romania 100.: 8/26/2018 11:18:52

Level 57
I.4 The Germanophile society

Until the start of the war, all Romanian politicians were "Germanophiles".Stuck between the Central Powers and Russia, Romania had unequivocally opted for the first. The situation of the Romanians in Transylvania introduced a discordant note on relations with Hungary.But it was not capable of destroying an alliance, which the national security of Romania was depending of.

This was the policy of all governments that have succeeded for three decades, liberal, conservative or conservative-democratic. Take Ionescu, the leader of the latter, who has been distinguished from the period of neutrality as "antantist’’,was in excellent relations with the leading circles in Germany.This is proven by the campaign plans prepared by the General Staff. All were conceived in the hypothesis of a war with Russia or Bulgaria.None considered a possible conflict with Austria-Hungary and Germany.

Romania had no choice between Russia and the Central Powers, but between France, the United Kingdom and Russia on the one hand, and the Central Powers on the other. Entente Partisans preferred France and the United Kingdom, considering that Russia's appetite will be restrained by its allies. Their opponents pointed out the Russian danger.

In addition to the different reporting to the great interests of Romania, party policy has also been taken into account. Possible options were: intervention on either side or neutrality. There were three parties.All have chosen chosen their way, of course, according to their beliefs. But the convictions were given the specific role that each party or political group understood to play, in opposition to the others.

For the conservatives remained only the progerman corridor, but they were more divided than the liberals or democratic conservatives. Most leaders leaned toward the Central Powers, but in two distinct variants. Petre P. Carp, with fewer followers, believed that Romania had to go to war on their side. The stronger was the current sustained by Titu Maiorescu and Alexandru Marghiloman. For them, the most rational solution was neutrality, favorable to Austria-Hungary and Germany.

Disappointed by Italy, the "Germanophiles" are reaching their hopes in Sweden.The dossier of a virtual Romanian-Swedish alliance illustrates a curious and less-known diplomatic approach from the First World War. In Sweden, as in Romania, there is a Germanophilic current. With Russia, the two countries had a similar historical disagreement.

"Germanophiles" have adopted different attitudes. For some, a new Romania was needed to raise from disaster, shaken by liberal demagogues and irresponsible, by the dynasty who had betrayed both German origin and obligations to the country of adoption and freed from all the evils of the past. It was the point of view of Carp and his supporters.
1918 - 2018.Romania 100.: 8/27/2018 06:43:27

Level 57
I.5 The Germanophile elite

Like any other opinion current, the Germanophile current had both supporters and ideological opponents.Thus, prior to neutrality and in the period of neutrality, the Germanophilic current has received many supporters, not just political renown. A large part of the Romanian elite at that time strongly supported Romania's entry into war on the part of the Centrale Powers.

Felix Aderca, a young Jewish writer, regarded the war as a turning point in the history of civilizations. The strictly national problems, dominant in the Romanian optics, were of less interest. Originally, in articles published in C. Rădulescu-Motru's new Romanian newspaper, reunited in the volume ‘’Bleed Blood. War notes’’, he was trying to keep the equal balance between France and Germany. But a "Germanophile" inclination was already seen, in that he vehemently denied all the accusations brought to Romania by the Germans.

Ioan Bogdan was a Transylvanian from Brasov, with university studies in Iasi and a specialization in Slavic studies in Vienna, then completed in Petersburg, Moscow and Krakow. By German formation, through the Austrian branch, placed together with D. Onciul the Romanian historiography on rigorous critical basis, focusing on a modern problem, predominantly of cultural and social history. Bogdan did not speak during the period of neutrality. But due to its "German-Austrian" and Junimist connections, it has not signed any of the university calls for entry into war or solidarity with France.

Under the pseudonym Gala Galaction, Grigore Pişculescu had already made a name of himself in literature around the First World War. Galaction belonged without reservation to the "Germanophile" camp, like his friend Tudor Arghezi. Only, unlike Arghezi, who explicitly affirmed his options, he preferred the peaceful manner. It ran to a gentle reproach to the opponents. Together with Arghezi, he published the weekly magazine Cronica for a year, after which he withdrew.

Dimitrie Evolceanu was a professor of Latin at the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters in Bucharest. Formed in Paris, Bonn and Leipzig, it can be seated among minor Germanophiles. With a gentle and a rather erratic personality, it was not the man who would launch himself in the arena. His co-ordinates were "Germanophile". He was an old and constantly Junimist and very close to T. Maiorescu, whom he frequently visited in years of neutrality and occupation.

One of the most prominent Romanian naturalists, Grigore Antipa, was an authentic Germanophile, very intellectually bound by Germany. He studied at the University of Jena, being one of Ernst Haeckel's favorite students.After returning to Romania, he became director of state fisheries and then General Inspector of the Ministry of Agriculture and Domains, further delegated to the Fisheries Directorate. In this title, he approached King Carol . The Danube and Germany linked them. Every year he accompanied the king on his rides on the Danube, being received "in the intimate circle of his family".

Tudor Arghezi did not perceive the war strictly through the Romanian national problem, but saw the perspective predominantly cultural . Dispreased the Balkans, including the balkanism of the Romanian society, in contrast to the civilization of Central Europe. Between Serbia and Austria, justice could not come back to the balkan Serbia. His admiration was mainly about the solidity and efficiency of Germany. France appeared superficial and decadent, and England mercantile and cynical.

B. Brănişteanu, an intellectual with university studies of sociology and political economy in Berlin, was very permeated by German culture.This was one of the most cultured journalists that the Romanian press had. Almost all of his career has taken place in ‘’Adevărul ‘’and in other publications belonging to this group, including’’ Dimineaţa.’’.It was a time and correspondent of the important German newspaper Frankfurter Zeitung. When Adevarul opted decisively for the Entente, Brănişteanu saw himself isolated in the editorial office as the sole supporter of the Central Powers. He thus manifested his radical Germanophilic position.
1918 - 2018.Romania 100.: 8/27/2018 16:58:07

Level 58
ok :v
1918 - 2018.Romania 100.: 8/30/2018 07:20:46

Level 57
I.6 Political supporters of the Germanophile current

The Germanophile elite of the country was made up of strong personalities, both cultural and social or public. Beyond the important advocates of this current were the political supporters. They fought for Romania's entry into World War I alongside the Central Powers. These politicians occupied important positions in the state and fought for what they thought was good for their homeland.

King Carol I was one of the most fervent partisans of the Germanophiles. Passing over his personal ties with the royal families of the Central Powers, Carol wanted to abide by the alliance treaties signed with this grouping. Confident in the Germanophilic powers, the King considered that for Romania the best strategy was to remain allied with the Central Powers because of their increased forces.

Petre P. Carp was the fiercest supporter of the Germanophilic current after King Carol I. Born in Moldova in a boyar family, Petre Carp graduated from a university of law and political science. He was noted as one of the leaders of the conservative ideology of the time, being a strong supporter of the Junimist ideas. He occupied numerous public and political functions on the conservative line, co-mingling with the diplomacy of the time. With the formation of the Constitutional Party, Petre Carp left the conservative branch and became the first president of the new party.

After the merging of all conservative elements into a final Conservative Party, Petre Carp was elected president. In the period preceding World War I, Carp's voice was one of the most powerful supporters of the Germanophile current. His position was related to the Russian danger that Carp considered imminent in the case of an alliance with the Triple Entente.

When the war broke out, Constantin Stere had no doubt about the policy to be followed: obviously, against Russia. This meant his dramatic separation from the liberals. Stere has published a series of articles in the ‘’Universul’’, in which he has put forward his first arguments. He could not complete what he proposed, because after the fourth article, the following were denied. His concept was extensively exposed in ‘’Viata Romaneasca’’, in the article titled "Romania and the European War".

Stere's hypothesis was that only Russian expansion was a danger to Romania. Austro-Hungary had no interest in expanding to Romania,this way increasing its number of Romanian subjects. Germany was favorable to Romania. Constantin Stere was a fervent supporter of the Germanophile current, fearing the Russian danger, like Petre Carp. The history of the Bessarabians had a strong influence on Stere's ideological choices.

Alexandru Marghiloman was another political supporter of the Germanophiles. But he had a moderate support for the country's situation. He studied in Paris, finishing the Faculty of Law and the School of Political Science. Alexandru Marghiloman supported the Germanophilic current due to the Russian danger. Like Petre Carp or Constantine Stere, he believed in the existence of such a possible thing. He considered that the Triple Alliance would not be of great help to Romania, against the strong Germany or Austro-Hungary.

Founder of Junimea, Titu Maiorescu was another moderate supporter of the Germanophile current. A major political leader, Maiorescu has made important contributions from a political, social and cultural point of view. Known for his acute misogynism, Titu Maiorescu had a clear picture of the issue of choosing a camp. Supporter of Petre Carp's ideas, Maiorescu saw the Russian dangers and claimed the position of Bessarabia's loss in the case of an alliance with the Triple Entente.
1918 - 2018.Romania 100.: 8/30/2018 12:05:11

Level 57
I.7 The Antanthophile current.
The Antanthophile current was one of two great World War I alliances: the Entente or the Triple Understanding. Entente, as a military and political block, was formed at the beginning of the war from France, the British Empire and the Russian Empire. Together with the Germanophilic current, the Antantophile current divided the society and political views of the country into two distinct blocks. Rivalry between the two reached maximum odds.

One of the greatest advocates of the Antantophile current was Ion I.C. Bratianu, the president of the National Liberal Party. When the King wanted to enter the war alongside the Central Powers, Bratianu strongly supported the position of neutrality. He was a follower of the struggle in favor of national interest and sought to obtain the support of the Entente. He wanted his national complement and fought, through various negotiations with the Entente, in order to be sure that Romania would get what she wanted at the end of the war.

The Liberals, leading the government, led by Ionel Bratianu, chose the middle path of neutrality. This was best suited to the responsibility of the government. At the end of the period it was possible to see that there was a transient neutrality. The situation has gradually led Romania to enter war with the Entente. Bratianu quickly came to this conviction.

Another strong supporter of the Antantophile current was Take Ionescu who, together with the Conservative-Democratic Party, opted for neutrality and for Romania's entry into war on the side of the Entente. Another supporter of this alliance was Nicolae Filipescu who, together with Bratianu and Take Ionescu, wanted the union with Transylvania.

Bratianu did not ‘’went down’’ easily. He has finally decided, at least on paper, the maximum possible: Transylvania, Bucovina, the entire Banat to Tisza and a border with Hungary pushed further west than the current frontier. He also obtained consistent military support from the Allies. But maybe it would not have been enough if the pressures of the representatives of the Entente were not added. They made it clear that it was the last moment when Romania was asked for the support: "Now or never!"

The existing conflict was between the King's and Bratianu's views. Carol I strongly supported the fulfillment of his commitments to the Central Powers. This situation could be avoided. The treaty talked about supporting Austria-Hungary on the battlefield only if it was attacked. Bratianu said that as long as Austro-Hungary attacked Serbia, Romania was not obliged to respect any kind of commitment because the treaty clearly stipulated Romania's position.

All campaign plans have been restored. All meant an armed action against Austria-Hungary, contrary to what was expected before. What today is well known was not known or at least could be suspected at that time. Bratianu secretly concealed his intentions, even with his ministers. It left the impression of genuine neutrality, with some gestures in favor of the Entente, but no more than that.

Romanians also looked at the attitudes of other neutral, whose evolution could encourage them to go one way or the other. Italy, a full member of the Triple Alliance, not simply associated, as Romania, has remained out of the conflict. This decision gave more weight to the similar orientation of most Romanian political leaders. A year later, Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary. Romania would do the same.
1918 - 2018.Romania 100.: 9/3/2018 07:49:06

Level 57
I.8 Political supporters of the Antantophile current.

Major political and cultural people were on the side of the Antantophile current. It was, in the end, the winning one. The decision to enter the war on the side of the Entente was taken under the pressure of Ion I. C. Bratianu. He fought the most with the European alliances to get the best result for Romania.

Ion I.C. Bratianu was considered one of Romania's most important politicians. He was an engineer. Schooled in the art of construction, he dedicated himself to the political life. He wanted to build a stronger Romania. He held many political positions, including the one of president of the Council of Ministers. He was the only political figure to have held this position 5 times. The President of the National Liberal Party, Ionel Bratianu, swiftly struggled for the antantophile current, considering that this was the best solution for Romania at international level. He was alco considering the military conflict which was in full swing.

Convinced supporter of the antantophile current, Ionel Bratianu, was the one who opted, in the first phase, to support the neutrality of Romania on the international level. He knew that an entry into the war was going to be imminent. He wanted, however, that when this is the case, Romania will have a much stable relation as possible with the European powers. Bratianu brought two indestructible arguments for the neutrality decision. The first was highlighted by the fact that Austria-Hungary had not notified Romania of its intention to declare war on Serbia. This made the political relationship between Romania and Austria-Hungary weakened.

Considering the failure to announce the decision to declare war on Serbia, Romania was not politically or legally bound to participate in the Austro-Hungarian battles. Bratianu's second argument was that of national sentiment. It highlighted the people's desire to remain neutral and the precarious situation of the Romanians in Transylvania, a situation that could not be omitted by the political leaders. The antantophiles struggled to win Romania's entry into war with the Entente.

An important member of the Conservative Party and a founding member of the Conservative-Democrat Party, Take Ionescu was another sympathetic and political supporter of the antantophile current. Supporting the arguments and opinions of Ionel Bratianu, Take Ionescu saw the alliance with the Entente the best solution for Romania. He considered Russian danger almost inexistent. Take Ionescu also fought for the liberation of Transylvania from the Austro-Hungarian domination. This was believed to be accomplished with the Triple Entente.

Nicolae Filipescu, one of Bucharest's best-known mayors of the modern age, was another supporter of the ideal. Founding member of the Epoca newspaper, Filipescu has made an important contribution to the propaganda made for the Entente on the territory of the country. Along with the other three famous antantophiles, Filipescu led a media war with both Germanophile society and King Carol I's decision to enter the war with the Central Powers.
1918 - 2018.Romania 100.: 9/3/2018 12:19:54

Level 57
I.9 The influence of writers on society

Two categories of intellectuals played a very special role in the modern era in the Romanian society. These are the writers and historians. Given that there was not yet a Romanian national state, it was their mission to cultivate the national spirit, preparing in consciousness the creation of Romania and the realization of the Great Romania. Founded quite late, the Romanian Academy, originally known as the Romanian Academic Society, had three sections: literary, historical and scientific.

Two-thirds of its members were writers and historians, a sign of the cultural distinction and the prestige of the two fields. Meanwhile, the Romanian society had evolved and a process of cultural differentiation and specialization had taken place. The writers were no longer responsible for everything. Sciences were no longer limited to history and philology. The political class assumed the direction of national politics, a sign of the development of the political sphere.

Notorious writers in the epoch, some of them almost classic, such as Alexandru Vlahuţă or Bratescu-Voineşti, are today almost forgotten. Others, on the contrary, had not touched the celebrity they would have later: Tudor Arghezi, Liviu Rebreanu, Mateiu Caragiale. There are also great writers who prefer to be silent, like George Coşbuc. There were also smaller writers such as D.D. Patrascanu, or even insignificant, such as D. Karnabatt, but very active in the movement of ideas during the war.

The "Proantantists" column has Octavian Goga and Barbu Delavrancea in the front line. The first was animated by Transylvanian motives, the second was faithful to the national ideal, but not less from the solidarity with France. Very philofrench, but also nationalists in the direction of Transylvania, were Ion Minulescu and Eugen Lovinescu. In the same category were I. Al. Brătescu-Voineşti, Alexandru Vlahuţă, the Transylvanians Ion Agârbiceanu and Zaharia Bârsan, Victor Eftimiu, Petre Locusteanu, Nicolae Davidescu, Mircea Rădulescu, Corneliu Moldovanu, Alexandru Cazaban, George Ranetti, the director of Furnica and Radu D. Rosetti.

However, both the writers, as exponents of the "soul" and the Romanian aspirations, as well as the historians, continued to have a notable influence on intellectuals and public opinion. It would have been expected, given their traditional role and in accord with the usual national-unitary interpretations, to see some, and others massively engaged in the struggle for national unity. This meant, first of all, from the Romanian perspective, the struggle for Transylvania. But it was not so.

A rigorous list of those who have expressed their stance on the war is hard to make. The differences are high, both in terms of notoriety and the intensity of national engagement. The Society of Romanian Writers, founded before the First World War, was in the period of neutrality counting 108 members. Many of them, however, were writers only in the very general sense of the term, that they were just writing. As names, who entered the history of Romanian literature, were not among the members of the Society.

The "Germanophiles" were represented,with highly conviction, by Ioan Slavici, Tudor Arghezi, Gala Galaction and D.D. Patrascanu. Coşbuc, then the most famous Romanian writer, but also the most silent in the years of the war, can be associated with the same category. Covering the gallery with various manifestations, G. Ibrăileanu and G. Topârceanu, from the group Viata Romanseasca, Alexandru Macedonski, then Duiliu Zamfirescu, Mateiu Caragiale, playwright A. de Herz, I.A. Bassarabescu and the most modest writer, but very active journalist, D. Karnabatt.

There is also a category of those who oscillated between opposite directions, represented with brilliance by Mihail Sadoveanu and Liviu Rebreanu. The former was already famous, the second was just starting to ascend. Presided over by francophile G. Diamandy, the Society of Romanian Writers probably had an antantophile majority, according to the public opinion, as any big gathering in Romania.
Posts 1 - 10 of 10